Can't We All Get Along: Principles Over Policy; Ideas Over Ideology

from the the-declaration-is-a-process dept

It's been really fantastic to see what's happened in the last week, since the Declaration of Internet Freedom was announced, leading to widespread discussion online (and lots of individuals and organizations signing on to support it). There was a ton of press coverage, and plenty of valuable feedback and thoughts.

I did want to respond to one of the most common criticisms I've been seeing: some are complaining that the principles are "too vague" and an awful lot of people seem upset that their specific policy goal isn't there. For example, the Declaration makes no mention of copyright or patent reform, and this has some people upset. Others are upset in the other direction, claiming that a lack of mention of copyright means that this document is really just a nefarious "specter" seeking to do away with copyright entirely. Meanwhile, others have looked at some of the groups involved, and because those groups have espoused a different political ideology in the past, assumed that this document is really a "secret" plan to put in place a preferred system of government.

So I want to clarify what some of the thinking was here, and why these criticisms are misguided. Those of us who put out the document should certainly take the blame for not necessarily explaining all of this upfront, but there's only so much explaining you can do.

Principles, Not Policy

Pretty early on in the discussion over this document, it was decided that we needed to focus on higher level principles, and not policy. This is the part that I think is confusing people the most. They think that this document is a policy document or that it's supposed to directly lead us to a specific policy. It is not. The document is the starting point in a process that we hope will bring more people together. This is a discussion. And rather than start at the end, we sought to put together some broad principles, and see if we could get most people to agree to them. If we focus on the principles first, and have a common understanding, we can move towards a more practical discussion. Too often, the fights over policy have little to do with principle, but rather are focused on "who benefits the most" or "why is this good for me." Part of the goal of this document was to get people to stop, take a step back and say "let's look at the fundamental principles."

Some have complained that the principles are too broad -- or even that nobody could possibly disagree with them (amusingly, those messages seem to come in at the same time as ones that do vehemently disagree with them). Indeed, the principles are broad, but that's on purpose. Again, the idea was to set forth the basic principles that we can get the majority of the world to agree on, because that opens up the possibility of moving forward based on principle, rather than on pet-project ambition or direct personal gain. So, yes, they're broad, and yes many people will agree with them. That's the point. The goal is to frame the discussion in a useful manner, and you don't do that by demanding something that most people don't agree with.

Ideas, Not Ideology:

The people who put this document together represent a very, very broad coalition, with many different viewpoints, political persuasions, geographic worldviews, etc. This was by design. The idea was to transcend silly and wasteful partisan bickering, and focus on these core principles to which the ideas matter, not the ideology. One of the most disappointing responses to this was that some people (including some who I consider friends) have tried to shift this into an ideological dispute, suggesting incorrectly that these principles were really all about one political ideology dominating, just because a small fraction of the coalition has, in the past, been associated with that ideology.

Unfortunately, all this is doing is taking a non-ideological, non-partisan (or even post-partisan) effort to get beyond silly partisan bickering... and trying to drag it back down into such a useless muck. This is a shame.

We have a chance here to move forward, together, as a wider internet community, and discuss a variety of ideas based on their merits, not based on "your team" winning. This isn't about any particular team, which is why we built such a broad coalition. This was about what is best for this thing that we all rely on: the internet.

Can't We All Get Along?

I know that this won't satisfy everyone. And others will complain that the principles still are too broad and too vague and don't mention their pet policy issue. But this is a process, not an end product. No one involved in the coalition that put this document together thinks that we (individually, or as a group) can speak for the world. What we wanted was a starting point for a wider discussion -- one that wasn't based on ideology or partisan bickering. We wanted something that started a discussion about actual ideas and principles and the question of what is really best for the internet and all its citizens.

And, from there, a discussion should ensue, with more milestones down the road. Many of us are already talking about the next steps in this process -- and, no, it's not about policy recommendations or specific political parties or ideology. It's about getting more people thinking and engaging and discussing.

To me, personally, that seems like a laudable goal. And I hope others think so too.

Reader Comments

The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

We have a chance here to move forward, together, as a wider internet community, and discuss a variety of ideas based on their merits, not based on "your team" winning. This isn't about any particular team, which is why we built such a broad coalition.

Right on. It's not about any particular team, but about the field and the rules of the game going forward, as described in more detail here:

But this is a process, not an end product. No one involved in the coalition that put this document together thinks that we (individually, or as a group) can speak for the world. What we wanted was a starting point for a wider discussion -- one that wasn't based on ideology or partisan bickering.

It's less like the Bill of Rights than it is like the Declaration of Independence, in other words, though some have apparently mistaken it for the other way around.

Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

Well, except that the entire thing is couched in the "my team" mentality of Techdirt.

Basically, it runs like this: those who want free, open, unlimited, unrestricted, uncontested, and unfettered access to everything, the right to use anything in any way at any time, those people are the ones who want to move things away from the current systems, and off towards a sort of internet commune mentality. You know, nobody owns anything, everyone owns everything, use what you want, tip if you like, and have a nice day.

But it's a pipe dream in many respects, because the current iteration of the free internet world only exists because people outside of the internet are paying for things. It's very misleading to say that the internet, in it's current form, could support even a small percentage of the content is consumes.

Much of the advertising on the internet is to promote digital or content products. If you take that stuff out of the pay world, and put it in the free world, you remove the ability for those people to buy the advertising that drives many of the sites. The result would be pretty much similar to what has happened with newspapers, radio, and such: The advertising market shrinks, the income shrinks, and as a result, the production of content shrinks as well (ask the people at Conde Nast about it).

When you come to realize that the current situation exists only because of outside money and outside income, you start to realize how improbable the internet future is as suggested.

The ideas and discussions have to be towards making a sustainable digital universe, that doesn't require propping up by outside income sources, or by government money, or by some kind of hand. There has to be models created that allow for the flow of money, to support the whole process and make it work. Without it, you are just living the pipe dream.

Understand: The internet right now isn't self supporting. Taking more and more money off the table (by turning content into "free") can only lead to a worse situation.

Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

Well, except that the entire thing is couched in the "my team" mentality of Techdirt.

Except it's not. Because it wasn't created by me or people who support my overall viewpoints. In fact, many of my own suggestions for what should be in the document were shot down, and I was fine with that, because those who disagreed with me were right: this isn't about any particular policy, but about understanding what's best for the internet.

Basically, it runs like this: those who want free, open, unlimited, unrestricted, uncontested, and unfettered access to everything, the right to use anything in any way at any time, those people are the ones who want to move things away from the current systems, and off towards a sort of internet commune mentality. You know, nobody owns anything, everyone owns everything, use what you want, tip if you like, and have a nice day.

You really should try reading what we actually write here, because we have never argued for any of that. We're BIG believers in property rights -- and don't support "nobody owns anything, everyone owns everything." You have to be willfully misreading what we write to believe that. We believe, however, that people *should* have the right to own *their own copies* and then do with them as they wish. That's where we probably disagree. But it has nothing to do with "everyone owns everything, no one owns anything."

Separate from that, we certainly don't believe everything should be free or that a tip-based system are good ideas. In fact, we've directly argued *against* that mentality (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080522/1545021204.shtml). Our focus is on recognizing that *basic economics* suggests some things will be driven to free by market forces, and some shouldn't be free, and if you understand that, you can do quite well. It's all about not screwing up by pricing the stuff that will get driven to free as if that would never happen.

I'm always amazed at people who think that we say "everything should be free," because it's as if their logic circuits stop the second we point out that *some things* are driven towards free due to market forces... and they assume, totally incorrectly, that we're saying all things must be free.

The fact that we celebrate all sorts of examples where things ARE NOT free and where creators make a TON of money (much more than they made under the old system) goes ignored. I don't understand why.

But it's a pipe dream in many respects, because the current iteration of the free internet world only exists because people outside of the internet are paying for things. It's very misleading to say that the internet, in it's current form, could support even a small percentage of the content is consumes.

This is wrong. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what's happening in the world. You really ought to look at the data.

Much of the advertising on the internet is to promote digital or content products.

If you take that stuff out of the pay world, and put it in the free world, you remove the ability for those people to buy the advertising that drives many of the sites.

Okay, we already showed that your premise is wrong, but let's have fun and pretend you were right. Even then... you're wrong. Because your assumption -- which has been proven incorrect many times over -- is that the only way a content business makes money... is to have people pay for it. That's wrong. There are all sorts of way that "free" providers make money.

The result would be pretty much similar to what has happened with newspapers, radio, and such: The advertising market shrinks, the income shrinks, and as a result, the production of content shrinks as well (ask the people at Conde Nast about it).

The media business shrunk for a variety of reasons -- most of which had to do with MUCH GREATER COMPETITION, and the fact that new online sites provided much greater draw for attention. Simple as that. But if you aggregate all the money being made by online sites, it's WAY, WAY more than the old offline media business. The market expanded when you define it properly. It did not shrink.

When you come to realize that the current situation exists only because of outside money and outside income, you start to realize how improbable the internet future is as suggested.

When you come to realize that your made assumption here is totally bogus, you start to realize just how much opportunity there is for an open internet that allows continued innovation.

The ideas and discussions have to be towards making a sustainable digital universe, that doesn't require propping up by outside income sources, or by government money, or by some kind of hand.

You mean, like what's already happened?

There has to be models created that allow for the flow of money, to support the whole process and make it work. Without it, you are just living the pipe dream.

Understand: The internet right now isn't self supporting. Taking more and more money off the table (by turning content into "free") can only lead to a worse situation.

Heh. This is very, very wrong. First of all, the internet is clearly quite self-supporting and the amount of money going into it continues to grow. No money has been "taken off the table). You again seem to think that free content means no money. That's wrong.

Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

"Heh. This is very, very wrong. First of all, the internet is clearly quite self-supporting and the amount of money going into it continues to grow. No money has been "taken off the table). You again seem to think that free content means no money. That's wrong."

All of that, and I have to say you almost miss the point entirely. Does the internet standing alone have the appeal, the content, and the material required to keep people online?

Much of the content you get online is paid for by the offline world. Even Google's incredible ad rates are often driven by offline sales in the real world, and not by online activity. If the internet turned off tomorrow, those companies would still be doing business, not just with Google.

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

Apparently it does because you are the one that really misses the fact that people has a need almost pathological to connect to others to exchange information and that is not necessarily the "content" you speak off.

In the early ages people didn't need the internet to watch movies, or music or even books, most people where happy to exchange ideas and to be in touch with others, they used it for learning too did you know that, one of the biggest uses of the internet is to learn something, that is why if you type "how to [something here]" it has thousands of hits.

Don't be sad though, your "content" helped but is not necessary for the internet to be there, people can create their own now they don't depend on you for it that much anymore.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

*** Don't be sad though, your "content" helped but is not necessary for the internet to be there, people can create their own now they don't depend on you for it that much anymore. ***

this point is made again and again, but it's very shallow.

why not take what's given for free than and don't be opposed to those who wish to charge for their content? I mean if there are so many people making great content for free, why do you need to illegally exploit or steal that which is not?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

I think that anyone who wishes to charge for their content should. It's theirs to sell, so they can sell it.

I also think that those that wish to give away their content should also be able to.

What I find interesting, of of the two groups, who seems to be the most successful?

It has been a long time in the making, notably kicked off with the Internet but, it is starting to appear to be those that take the time to connect with those that love their work, are doing better. Those content creators that want their work to be seen by as many potential fans as possible, are becoming the new standard in success.

Don't get me wrong, I buy more content than my wife would like. I buy music, movies (DVDs only.) and an occasional comic book. I firmly feel that everyone should be compensated for their work, one way or another.

I do find it interesting that payment in the form of cash and licensing is quickly being replaced by other revenue streams.

The only major argument I have is the length of copyright. At one time, copyright was a contract between the public and the content creator. Now, it has been twisted in to some form of lifetime annuity for the creator. It's no longer the deal that the public originally struck with content creators for the privilege of having an exclusive contract to their content.

Finally, to get off my soap box, making fun and ridiculing the public over ideas of access to content, an unfettered Internet, and protection for freedom of speech will only make you and your ilk despised and avoided.

Sooner or later, the corrupt, bought and paid for government (UK, US, France, etc.) will die out and be replaced with new ideas. Scared of that day?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

What is stopping you from selling anything again?

Red Hat gives away their product for free and still manage to make millions, Arduino that produces hardware gives away the plans to make their products and don't stop anybody from copying them and still manages to make millions.

Now explain again who is stopping you or anybody from selling anything even in the face of copying by others which translates to competition for services and at worse reduction of market share and at best a natural monopoly if you are able to make people buy from you and not the other guy.

Are you that incompetent that you need to be give a granted monopoly to have a business?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

There are exceptional cases at every level. The old bagel / donut guy who just leaves his cart in the morning and expects people to pay - and it works. There are exceptions to the rules out there. But even Mike Masnick knows that when you have a data point that is far away from all of the other data points, that perhaps you might exclude it or be wary of it because it is so far off.

When I have to compete against my own product (movie, music, software) being given away for free, I am already behind the eight ball. I end up not being able to actually sell my wares, but rather I have to come up with some way to sell some ancillary service or product that people might want. So the money spent to create the initial product is lost. I cannot make a living only selling music.

It isn't because people don't want music, it's not because people don't like the music - it's because they have figured out how to get it for nothing, so they no longer want to pay for it.

As for Red Hat, I would say you might want to consider the full size of the *nix / free OS / Apache markets, and understand that they are only getting a very, very small percentage of what is really out there. Their luck is only that their products are generally not simple installs, mostly custom, and giving the software away for free to people doesn't change the need to very expensive support to make it work at all.

There is no need for monopolies, but I should have the exclusive right to sell my work. Do you considering owning your house a monopoly?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

There are exceptional cases at every level. The old bagel / donut guy who just leaves his cart in the morning and expects people to pay - and it works.

Apples-to-oranges comparison. Nobody's expecting people to not even pay marginal cost for something.

When I have to compete against my own product (movie, music, software) being given away for free, I am already behind the eight ball.

You're in the same boat as any manufacturer who finds a competitor selling a substitutable good at a lower price. IBM when clone PCs started selling. A designer when knockoffs of their latest dress hit the market.

Yet they get by. IBM is still a multibillion dollar business. So are the big fashion designers' companies. So can you.

And if you can't hack it, why shouldn't bankruptcy be your fate, same as it would have been IBM's, or the clothing designer's? Why should you get special rules that exclude competition? Why shouldn't you sink and swim with the other businesses in other sectors of the economy?

And don't give me the poor starving artists routine. First of all, copyright was supposed to be to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts", not "artist welfare". If you want artist welfare why not lobby for actual artist welfare, as in, a monthly government stipend to artists conditioned on something such as, say, they let anyone freely use and build on their work and enough find it valuable that it becomes at least somewhat popular?

For that matter, artists seem to be doing better than ever before. It's only gatekeepers that used to be able to interpose themselves between an artist and any big-enough audience that are losing out, and they're losing by failing to adapt to add actual value worth paying for.

I cannot make a living only selling music.

No, you can't. Only the record labels ever could, and they increasingly can't. But one can make a living performing music. Yes, it means one must actually work some more to get paid some more and work some more to get paid some more, rather than getting to do the work once and then keep getting paid for it for life, but hey, in this economy you should be happy to have a job you get paid for if you do it. Asking to get paid even if you quit doing it seems just a tiny bit unreasonable in that light, doesn't it?

There is no need for monopolies, but I should have the exclusive right to sell my work.

Classic contradiction. There is no need for monopolies, but I should have one anyway? What the hell kind of an argument is that?

Do you considering owning your house a monopoly?

No. Nor do I consider owning your disc with some music on it a monopoly. But I do consider getting the government to forbid anyone else from making or selling a house to be a monopoly, and I do consider getting the government to forbid anyone else from making or selling discs with copies of that music to be a monopoly.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

The problem boils down to.... When prostitutes (ie artists under contract) are no longer a use to you (obvious legacy) pimps; the whole system degrades. And you (the pimps)try to claim that you have rights and should be able to sell 'your work.' Even though 'your work' has only ever been to tell the artist who they need to be nailed by next.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

Quote:

When I have to compete against my own product (movie, music, software) being given away for free, I am already behind the eight ball. I end up not being able to actually sell my wares, but rather I have to come up with some way to sell some ancillary service or product that people might want. So the money spent to create the initial product is lost. I cannot make a living only selling music.

Explain how restaurants, traveling agents, the textile industry, bankers, dentists, surgeons, and just about everybody else can do it and you can't again please?

Besides musicians don't make a living only by selling music do they? most tour and sell merch the merch can be anything including t-shirts that by the way gain you 110% return I don't really understand why people make fun of apparel since it is the most profitable part of it behind maybe only direct ticket sales.

Quote:

As for Red Hat, I would say you might want to consider the full size of the *nix / free OS / Apache markets, and understand that they are only getting a very, very small percentage of what is really out there. Their luck is only that their products are generally not simple installs, mostly custom, and giving the software away for free to people doesn't change the need to very expensive support to make it work at all.

So what, they still get to be a billion dollar company without any legal crutches focused on serving their customers and you hinted there this was not possible, but behold it is possible and apparently very profitable maybe they don't get another billion dollars out of it, but they also don't go fooling around with others peoples rights, nor they contribute to censorship tools.

Quote:

There is no need for monopolies, but I should have the exclusive right to sell my work. Do you considering owning your house a monopoly?

Hint: exclusive rights is the same thing as a granted monopoly in case you didn't know. Therefore you shouldn't get it, you shouldn't have it just like nobody else inside society have those kind of rights.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

Yep, one that I can protect and serve myself, do I get a monopoly on the feel and look of my house? Do I get to stop others from copying my house? Do I get to charge others for copying my house?

Nope that is what you are asking, you don't want others copying it or making their own copies and selling or performing meaning you want to charge others for their work that they did themselves believing you own the idea of a house.

Do you believe you have the right to demolish others homes because they copied yours?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

You missed the point. The concept is that home ownership gives you exclusive rights to the property. Do you consider that monopoly, even though there are tens of millions of other houses out there? You don't have a monopoly on houses, you have the ownership of one house.

A copyright on a song isn't a monopoly on music, it's the ownership of one song.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

Further you didn't explain why I can copy a house and not be charged with criminal intent, fraud, infringement or anything else a house have a very limited set of exclusive rights which your beloved IP law long have lost, you don't get to tell anybody what to copy, how to copy, when to copy, where to copy.

You see if somebody was going to your home and take away from you I would defend you, if somebody copied your home and throw a tantrum I make fun of you.

You don't respect the rights you want for others why should anybody respect those rights that you claim to have?

Have you paid royalties to the people who produced everything you own? nope?
Than you are just another thief according to your own parameters.

I fraking want to see you pay royalties out of your earnings to the people who made your instruments, your clothes, shoes, car, food and anything else you "buy" from others.

You probably start calling them parasites because that is what they are if they did such thing and that is what you are.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

the house is a scarce resource. by its nature it can be used only by one person, without violent conflict over it; so property rights allocate an owner. How? by asking: who was the first person to use the previously unowned resources that constitute the house? And has he contractually given it to anyone else? That's how we determine who owns any particular scarce resource.

Owning a song really means you can tell others how not to use their already-owned property. It's a negative servitude granted by the state, not by the owner. It's just theft of his property rights.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

You are like John Hinckley aren't you?

Start like something good a little obsession there, no harm no foul right?

Like IP law, child abuse laws, discrimination laws and all that other crap, it starts with all the good intentions in the world but at some point a line is crossed, people get obsessed and lost sight of what is right and wrong.

You having exclusive right to live in your own house and use that house is not the same thing as claiming ownership on all the copies of that house throughout the world Hinckley, collecting memorabilia from Jodie Foster and having a crush on her is totally different from erecting an altar for her and going to assassinate a president to show it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

Do I get to charge everybody in the house for my life plus 95 years after my death for having build or designed a house?

Do I get to stop others from copying my house or any elements of my house?

Do I get to charge criminally anyone who copies my house and sell it?

Do I get the power to go around builders and designers and make them pay me for anything they copy from my house?

Of course not, it is ridiculous, just as you don't have to pay anything to the both makers and designers of your clothes, food, car, instruments, software even if you use those things to make money, but somehow you feel you are entitled to such wrongs...I mean rights.

You should live in your world for a while to see how comfy that is, having to pay for the rest of your natural life somebody else who doesn't do any work but still feels entitled to to what you make.

Have you paid royalties to the people who made your clothes? to the car manufacturers? to the plane manufacturers? to the cotton farmers, to the textile mills, to the software developers, to the coders, to the electronic designers that spend decades learning hard math and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars doing so and you don't pay them despite them having to invest heavily in their own education just to design things you don't want to pay royalties for.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

Ever read "Permanence" by Karl Schroeder? At one point they run into a colony world where they have been charging royalties on every kind of item for any use of it. It's not a pretty picture. Needless to say they turn out to be oppressive bad guys being fought by a valiant underground resistance ...

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

The internet is the modern equivalent of the phone system. It is not supported by advertising, it is supported by the people who pay their monthly cable or phone bills.

You seem to have a problem differentiating between websites and the internet. If internet advertising were to magically vanish tomorrow, we would loose a ton of websites, but over 90% of them would still be here. I have my sites paid for for 5-10 years in advance.

If Facebook, LinkedIn, and G+ where to fail, you would end up with a standardized social media plugin for e-mail servers, WordPress, etc.

You rate the value of what the content industry sells way to highly. The internet is not about label or studio content, it is about communication. Until you understand that you will be forever lost here.

Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

"Basically, it runs like this: those who want free, open, unlimited, unrestricted, uncontested, and unfettered access to everything, the right to use anything in any way at any time, those people are the ones who want to move things away from the current systems, and off towards a sort of internet commune mentality. You know, nobody owns anything, everyone owns everything, use what you want, tip if you like, and have a nice day."

You really should try reading what we actually write here, because we have never argued for any of that.

Right, instead you argue against any measure that would prevent it.

We're BIG believers in property rights -- and don't support "nobody owns anything, everyone owns everything." You have to be willfully misreading what we write to believe that.

Maybe tangible property rights, certainly not intellectual property.

We believe, however, that people *should* have the right to own *their own copies* and then do with them as they wish. That's where we probably disagree. But it has nothing to do with "everyone owns everything, no one owns anything.

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

Piracy at the expense of freedom of expression, democracy, property rights only for a small group of people ignoring the rest and the law?

We all know that is not going to fly, pigs will get to the skies first.

Imaginary property is not property, is not something that is desirable to be treated as a right even more so when it is based on a granted monopoly managed and secured by a mammoth that was not designed to change or adapt and I mean the government here.

Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

Well, except that the entire thing is couched in the "my team" mentality of Techdirt.

No.

Basically, it runs like this: those who want free, open, unlimited, unrestricted, uncontested, and unfettered access to everything, the right to use anything in any way at any time, those people are the ones who want to move things away from the current systems, and off towards a sort of internet commune mentality. You know, nobody owns anything, everyone owns everything, use what you want, tip if you like, and have a nice day.

Are you confused? We're some of the most pro-private-property, anti-communist folks you're likely to run across. Of course, this means we don't like governments trying to pull stuff like SOPA that would strip us of some of our property rights in computers and discs we've bought and that would allow even more arbitrary seizures of servers and other property without due process. It also means we're rather skeptical of the alleged merits of any sort of centralized economic control, such as government-granted monopolies, including copyrights and patents.

But it's a pipe dream in many respects, because the current iteration of the free internet world only exists because people outside of the internet are paying for things.

The last time I checked, there are no people inside of the internet. For example, I'm inside a room sitting in front of a keyboard that is connected to the internet, rather than inside of the internet. So yes, you're technically correct; without us people sitting in rooms paying for things like T-1 lines and fibre and routers, the Internet couldn't have been constructed. Your point being?

It's very misleading to say that the internet, in it's current form, could support even a small percentage of the content is consumes.

Content isn't consumed. Unlike food, which when you eat it it disappears, when you read or watch or listen to content it's still there afterward. So you seem to be confused again.

Also, the internet now seems to support either all, or almost all, content at this point. Few if any cultural artifacts can't be found online somewhere, in some form. Well, except for original painted canvases, sculptures, and so forth ... we need better 3D and VR to add those with good enough fidelity. :)

Or did you mean support financially, rather than storage and transmission capacity wise? Kickstarter and other Internet mechanisms for funding the creation of content seem to be rapidly growing to the point of being competitive with older, internetless funding models.

Much of the advertising on the internet is to promote digital or content products. If you take that stuff out of the pay world, and put it in the free world, you remove the ability for those people to buy the advertising that drives many of the sites.

I'm not even sure what this is trying to say. I don't suppose you have the Stargate addresses of this "free world" and this "pay world"? We could always use more addresses in the SGC database, just in case there's something we might find there that might help in the fight against the Scarcemongers that have swiftly filled in the power vacuum left after the defeat of the Ori. They're a devious bunch, attempting to destroy value and impoverish whole worlds using a devastating superweapon called "artificial scarcity", and some sort of adapted Goa'uld hand device with which they brainwash politicians as part of their infiltration and world-domination plots.

Oops, I think maybe I wasn't supposed to talk about some of that stuff on an unsecured channel.

The result would be pretty much similar to what has happened with newspapers, radio, and such: The advertising market shrinks, the income shrinks, and as a result, the production of content shrinks as well (ask the people at Conde Nast about it).

Yes, that tends to happen to obsolescent media. Why, the advertising market for putting your pitch alongside cave paintings is all but gone.

When you come to realize that the current situation exists only because of outside money and outside income, you start to realize how improbable the internet future is as suggested.

People said that five years ago about funding models like Kickstarter. Who's laughing now? And twenty years ago about any kind of commerce on the net at all. I'm sure radio pundits pooh-poohed the possibility of television surviving without regurgitating adapted radio content that hadn't been paid for via television advertising back in the thirties, too.

The ideas and discussions have to be towards making a sustainable digital universe, that doesn't require propping up by outside income sources, or by government money, or by some kind of hand.

Yes, sustainability is key and especially we must avoid reliance on government handouts, such as content or invention implementation monopolies.

There has to be models created that allow for the flow of money, to support the whole process and make it work. Without it, you are just living the pipe dream.

How fortunate, then, that we have Paypal and Kickstarter and numerous other businesses in the facilitating-the-flow-of-internet-money business.

Understand: The internet right now isn't self supporting.

Sure it is.

Taking more and more money off the table (by turning content into "free") can only lead to a worse situation.

Obviously, you need a remedial course in Econ 101. Pricing at or near marginal cost maximizes economic wealth creation. It is pricing artificially high that creates deadweight loss.

Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

"bviously, you need a remedial course in Econ 101. Pricing at or near marginal cost maximizes economic wealth creation. It is pricing artificially high that creates deadweight loss."

Econ 101 also explains that the marginal cost models do not apply in all cases, especially those where the majority of the costs are not in the marginal cost area. It takes only pennies to distribute digitally. It however costs much more than pennies to make the product. Using only marginal costs as the defining factor in pricing your product in that situation is pretty much consigning yourself to failing.

Techdirt may post hundreds of articles trying to downplay or totally ignore the up front costs of content production, but it doesn't make it go away. You need to look at average total cost to truly understand what is going on. Mike Masniick doesn't like that little fact.

"Are you confused? We're some of the most pro-private-property, anti-communist folks you're likely to run across."

Actually, you should pay attention. Stripping copyright away from artists (or limiting it's effectiveness) is a way to take away private property rights and move that art into being public property. You cannot be "free everything digital" and claim to respect artist rights. It's nuts.

"The last time I checked, there are no people inside of the internet. For example, I'm inside a room sitting in front of a keyboard that is connected to the internet, rather than inside of the internet. So yes, you're technically correct; without us people sitting in rooms paying for things like T-1 lines and fibre and routers, the Internet couldn't have been constructed. Your point being?"

Are you dense? I am talking about peoople who are living, working, and buying things in other ways than online. You know, AFK? The real world? As for the rest of your point, the concept is lost on you. You are confusing plumbing with the uses of plumbing. I don't care who paid for the pipes, I care who paid for the content on it.

"Yes, that tends to happen to obsolescent media. Why, the advertising market for putting your pitch alongside cave paintings is all but gone."

Yes, and putting your ad for a digital service you can no longer get paid for is right up there too.

"How fortunate, then, that we have Paypal and Kickstarter and numerous other businesses in the facilitating-the-flow-of-internet-money business."

yeah, paypal right now being targetted as one of the major money funnels for illegal file sharing and "file locker" affiliate programs.

Kickstarter appears to be the myspace of financing. Talk to me again in a few years, when a few too many people have been ripped off and donor fatigue settles in.

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

Econ 101 also explains that the marginal cost models do not apply in all cases, especially those where the majority of the costs are not in the marginal cost area.

BS.

It takes only pennies to distribute digitally. It however costs much more than pennies to make the product.

It takes only a couple of grand to make and distribute a car, but costs much more to design a new model of car, yet you don't see car companies demanding monopolies from the government so they can charge millions instead of thousands for their products.

Using only marginal costs as the defining factor in pricing your product in that situation is pretty much consigning yourself to failing.

Wrong again. The invisible hand will force the cost towards marginal, no matter what. If you price higher, someone else will underprice you. You either deal with that or you go out of business.

There are a few different ways you can deal with it. You can get away with charging a premium if your quality is better or your brand has cachet. There'll be cheap knock-offs, of course, but people will buy at the higher price just to show they are rich, or to show they support you, or to prove they have "taste" as defined by some circle, or whatever. This is a major force in the fashion industry -- any dress can be copied and the copies sold for a few tens of dollars, yet the original design cost a lot more to come up with; and the thousand-dollar price tag of the designer's non-knockoff version tends to actually generate some sales.

The market works fine without artificial monopoly even for goods with much lower marginal costs than design costs, in other words.

Techdirt may post hundreds of articles trying to downplay or totally ignore the up front costs of content production, but it doesn't make it go away.

Techdirt downplays those, if it does, because they don't matter. Your customers don't care. Nobody else much cares. And Smith's invisible hand certainly doesn't care. You get by on thin margins and pay off the initial investment eventually by making it up on volume, or you differentiate your brand in some manner that lets you get away with charging a premium, or you keep innovating so customers buying (or downloading) cheap knock-offs will always be behind the curve and the ones who want the latest and greatest will go to the source. That is what every other industry does, for the most part.

You need to look at average total cost to truly understand what is going on. Mike Masniick doesn't like that little fact.

Fortunately for him, it's not actually a fact. And what is "average total cost", anyway? You'd have to add the marginal cost to R&D-cost/N where N is the total number of units eventually sold, but without a crystal ball you don't know what N is. If your product is successful enough it might be really huge, and then your "average total cost" will be close to marginal cost anyway.

But again, that's irrelevant because the invisible hand doesn't care how much something took to design, only how much it takes to make one more of it.

Actually, you should pay attention.

Classic erroneous presupposition.

Stripping copyright away from artists (or limiting it's effectiveness) is a way to take away private property rights and move that art into being public property.

Are you on something? Copyright is not a private property right. In fact it's a narrow exception to private property rights, one that may under some circumstances let the government help you limit what I can do with a disc or a book or something that you sold me -- a disc or a book or something that is my private property. Without copyright, my private property rights would obviously include a right to make and sell copies of that thing.

The DMCA's anti-circumvention rules add more exceptions and limitations to private property rights, and the notice-and-takedown provision too, since it means I can't just have anything I want on a computer server that I own without someone else being able to force me to remove something.

Copyright is an exception to private property rights. It's completely broken and delusional to regard it as a property right.

Patents are also exceptions to private property rights; I can buy parts for something but be forbidden from assembling them into that something, which I would be able to do legally if I had full and unfettered private property rights.

Of course, exceptions to property rights aren't inherently bad. The law against murder limits my right to point a gun I bought at someone and pull its trigger, for example, and the tax law provides for the common defense, maintenance of shared infrastructure, and the like -- taxes pay for the stadium and field and referees of the game that is a capitalist economy, and without which it would quickly become an oligarchist economy that was much less productive instead.

However, copyrights and patents seem these days to be exceptions that do far more harm than good.

Lots of people and companies (Red Hat has already been mentioned) have made lots of money with digital goods available for free.

For that matter, the economically-clueless twits that you represent have made lots of money with digital goods available for free, albeit ones available for free over their vigorous and ongoing objections.

Funny how that works.

Are you dense?

About 1g/cc; why do you ask?

I am talking about peoople who are living, working, and buying things in other ways than online.

Yes. So?

You know, AFK? The real world?

The last time I checked, the internet was not imaginary. So it, too, is part of "the real world".

As for the rest of your point, the concept is lost on you.

Wrong.

You are confusing plumbing with the uses of plumbing.

Wrong.

I don't care who paid for the pipes, I care who paid for the content on it.

How is that in any way relevant to the pipes, though? This entire discussion, under this particular blog post, is about the damn pipes in case you hadn't noticed. So you're drifting way off-topic by worrying about who pays for the water instead of the pipes.

Yes, and putting your ad for a digital service you can no longer get paid for is right up there too.

Which digital service can't you get paid for anymore? You haven't specified it. So far as I'm aware there's no non-obsolete digital service for which that's true.

yeah, paypal right now being targetted as one of the major money funnels for illegal file sharing and "file locker" affiliate programs.

You mean, the new model that MegaUpload had been exemplifying, whereby the content was free but the creators were raking it in hand over fist, until you, horrified at competition that had found a new business model that let them underprice you, got your bought-and-paid-for government goons on the horn and had them shut down illegally by fiat? The guys that were going to out-do you in the money-making business and who you could only "compete" with by means of out-and-out corruption? The guys that proved your whole thesis wrong? Those guys?

Hardly the example you should have raised in your defense. "I didn't do it, your honor! At the time of the alleged crime, I was six whole feet away and too busy pulling the trigger on ... er, what was I saying?"

Kickstarter appears to be the myspace of financing.

Really? Then in a few years I'll be very interested to watch the Facebook of financing show up on the scene. Things ought to get really exciting then! Assuming you clueless idiots don't strangle it in the cradle in your ignorance and fear.

Talk to me again in a few years, when a few too many people have been ripped off and donor fatigue settles in.

Classic erroneous presupposition that there's any evidence of Kickstarter ripping people off, or being used to rip people off.

Econ 101... wow, you really need to take it!

Well then, bad news. Not only have I already, but my viewpoint is shared by no fewer than three winners of the fucking Nobel Prize in economics.

Now, you can go scamper off with a blistered ass. If you're a real masochistic glutton for punishment, you can even come back in a few hours with another missive that completely misses every point, but you'd probably be better off just curling up in a corner somewhere and rethinking your life. And your allegiances. Good day.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

Androdynous Cowherd: You are right to say that IP is not a legitimate property right. It is an "exception" to property rights--i.e., it is contrary to property rights, and thus to justice.

However you are wrong to say that some exceptions are good, or that laws against murder are exceptions. You write:

"Of course, exceptions to property rights aren't inherently bad. The law against murder limits my right to point a gun I bought at someone and pull its trigger, for example, and the tax law provides for the common defense, maintenance of shared infrastructure, and the like -- taxes pay for the stadium and field and referees of the game that is a capitalist economy, and without which it would quickly become an oligarchist economy that was much less productive instead."

As for the other comments: you cannot demonstrate that taxation (which is theft) is ever justified. Aggression simply can never be justified. But it is not aggression to prohibit murder. Murder is aggression. Prohibiting it is not aggression.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

However you are wrong to say that some exceptions are good, or that laws against murder are exceptions.

Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim. If there were no exceptions to property rights at all, there'd be no taxation in particular, and without that, no social safety net (in tatters though it may be), no Interstate highway system, no national defense, ... and no referees to make sure everyone playing the capitalist wealth-creation game is playing fair on a level playing field. You'd end up with an anarchy in which it would be winner-take-all, and whichever large company won would turn it into an oligarchy. We'd end up back to feudalism after a generation or two.

The law against murder is a PROTECTION of property rights (in one's own body), not an exception to them.

The rights one has in one's own body aren't quite normal property rights. For one thing, your body is inalienable -- you can't sell it into slavery. If you could ... well see "feudalism", above.

As for the other comments: you cannot demonstrate that taxation (which is theft) is ever justified.

Warped.

How else would you suggest the playing field be maintained and those who adjudicate the rules paid? By the same private businesses that are players on that field? Hello, conflict of interest. It's bad enough when the refs and groundskeepers are susceptible to lobbying influences to reshape the field and the rules to favor a particular team. Government should not overregulate, as that thwarts the invisible hand and magnifies susceptibility to lobbying of this sort. But its complete absence (or moneylessness, which would induce powerlessness and amount to the same thing) would effectively magnify that susceptibility even more, in that pieces of the field would be directly owned by players with a vested interest in tilting those pieces in their favor. Market competition would erode away to nothing as some large company bought strategic parts of the field, tilted them to exclude competition, and grew eventually to own the whole damn planet. And, if our bodies were just ordinary alienable property, to own everyone on it!

But apparently as long as they don't beat the people they've bought you'd be fine with that outcome. Hm.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

A tax free society can't work, period. Unless some group has the power to compel paying taxes, whatever takes their place will be voluntary, and can be withheld, and in the withholding used to bribe those who maintain the playing field and adjudicate the rules to skew things in favor of one player and against others. And that creates the positive-feedback instability that leads, eventually, to feudalism by way of privately-controlled monopoly.

Of course we have the bribery already, in the form of campaign finance, but replacing that with another, more direct form of bribery won't help anything. The only way to get money out of politics is to ensure that candidates and incumbents have all they need regardless of what possible donors they piss off. Only then will the power of the vote be as great as it should be, and the government beholden only to we, the people acting as individuals.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

"A tax free society can't work, period."

is this supposed to be an argument for theft? What exactly is it? If some random nym just asserts "An X-free society can't 'work'" then a law mandating X is justified? Wow, I must have missed that class in school.

Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

Undestand this, the internet is self sustained and it has been for a long time now well before the content you mean have been on it.

It is self sustaining because people have a need to connect to each other and exchange information.

But you apparently is one of those people that think, only what you say is important and only your information is worth something, worse still is the belief that money is what sustains something it is not, work, continuous honest to God unabashed work done for free or at a price is what sustains anything these days the money is an illusion, the money is a shackle, it is a means to say look I will do this and I promise you can get the same amount out of this money here if I give it to you, the greatest thing about money is that it is amoral and teaches people that no matter what, you just need to work to get it, now when I see somebody like you a social parasite trying to extract rent from others without having to do any real work, now that pisses me off tremendously.

Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

Re: Re: The Field and the Rules, Not the Game

"the current situation exists only because of outside money and outside income ...."

No one invited outside money or income to participate. They were allowed to join in as part of a free society online. No one OWES them a living. They do not OWN the internet. The internet developed without them just fine.

I'd rather read user created content than the majority of "professionally" produced content anyway. Average people are amazingly creative. That is the scary concept at the root of much of this conflict.

Let me refer you to this declaration from 1996. It's a piece of internet history that should not be ignored or forgotten, as it remains just as valid today.

Re: OMG! OMG! LOL...

Interesti ng. So, let me see if I understand the position that the Trichordist (primarily David Lowery, Chris Castle and David Newhoff) has just publicly announced.

- The Trichordist is opposed to transparency in the lawmaking process
- The Trichordist is pro-censorship
- The Trichordist is against promoting affordable internet access
- The Trichordist is against privacy rights and does not think user's should have control over their data

That's... an interesting stance. I had no idea you guys were so Orwellian.

Re: Re: OMG! OMG! LOL...

Well, Leigh, in the Trichoridst' defense, how else is Lowery going to sell records? By actually connecting with fans? By playing decent music? By not being a douchebag? Come on, now. The only way he can survive in the world is by strictly demanding everyone do as he says and by controlling all information and limiting the rights of others.

Speaking of Orwellian. The Orwellians. Sounds like a good name for a band. Shotgun! I'll avoid one of the many obligatory XKCD links to support the previous sentences.

Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG! OMG! LOL...

Re: Re: OMG! OMG! LOL...

leigh - too funny...

Interesting. So, let me see if I understand the position of TechDirt (primarily Mike Masnick, Leigh Beadon) has just publicly announced.

- TechDirt is opposed to transparency in the lawmaking process
- TechDirt is pro-censorship
- TechDirt is against promoting affordable internet access
- TechDirt is against privacy rights and does not think user's should have control over their data

That's... an interesting stance. I had no idea you guys were so Orwellian.

Re: Re: Re: OMG! OMG! LOL...

If I was a bit more paranoid, I'd think that the attempts to plunge the debate into partisan bickering were sabotage; with everyone involved in any attempt at securing freedom dragged into fighting each other by an arbitrary "us vs. them" mentality, they'd be unable to accomplish anything, preserving the power of the ruling class.

But I'm not, so I'll stick with Hanlon's razor: the bickerers just don't know any better.

Re:

Science fiction author David Brin seems to think that the general trend in recent years for all political debate in the United States to be pushed into partisan bickering by a few loud voices on talk radio might be intentional sabotage.

Re: nothing moar, nothing less

I hope it was for my work at exposing the hypocrite antipirate, getting him to willfully fund piracy, then making him delete the evidence of his criminality and hypocrisy.
If it is, I accept the nomination. I really should make that into an article.

hiding, censoring and harboring pedophiles

Can we all get on the "same page" with this issue, please
Someone needs to write the bullet points first.

You have to play their game and drum the same message over and over and over again.(ad nauseum) Play on emotion is essential:
People are irrational beings, with no time to think deeply about a subject or to research facts.
If you garner peoples emotion, they will believe lies and ignore facts. (false narratives are lies) eg...FoxNews (there are more but, FoxNews is a pretty fucking good, all inclusive example of the point)

So if you want to succeed, don't expect rational to beat emotional.
We need to use rational to achieve emotional. That way you can justify with rational arguments while playing the emotional. Something FoxNews can't do, and why they are ridiculed by many.

Phrases to repeat ad nauseum: ( make more of them, and better of course )

Legal content is not the same as illegal content.(needs no work, I have cut that down over years of using it in the filesharing debate , usually I add a ridiculous example of legal content becoming illegal like, "or is the new Justin Beiber album illegal content ?" )

You WANT to HIDE, censor and HARBOR a paedo ? sickFuck, get the police to catch him and rescue the victim.

TL;DR
They are people with resources who are not beyond using highly emotional phrases to control the narrative.
If we all coordinate, we can put out a clear message, that not only is rational, it's emotional too. A well formed, clear and concise message being repeated ad nauseum by lot's of people, is good way to go.

Re: Head Scratching

It's also driven by some people who think that calling for an open Internet is favoring certain business models, or that it's calling for government intervention. When what it's really calling for is an open Internet -- and then we can discuss the best ways to achieve/preserve that, in a rational way.

Losing our Freedom

When I first saw this Declaration of Internet Freedom I well understood what they were trying do and this certainly gets my support. This is just about 5 powerful concepts which if moved forwards has the ability to change many laws. At best it could expand to be a virtual Bill of Rights for the Internet establishing key rights and limitations.

This is not about changing copyright laws but in limiting copyright enforcement to not change or harm the Internet.

It is easy to see these days that so many organizations have woken up and have realised how important the Internet is. Their eyes soon gleam over as they imagine the power and control they can obtain by carving out their own slice.

Tracking connections, compiling data, subpoena service to obtain anonymous protester personal data, and this will only get worse in time as they compile and track all data about you.

A related problem is that once Governments have forced ISPs to track subscriber data and connections to a high degree then any private organization can subpoena this data. This removes all privacy when then anyone can discover who you are based on any false claim that can fool a Judge.

So here they are trying to slice, dice, track, compile, censor and bash your Internet connection. The Internet is the greatest creation of our generation in an economy worth trillions and those looking to harm the freedom of the Internet seriously need to fuck off.

I should also add that the United States is the worst one here even up to the point of learning electronic warfare so they can one day electronically blow up your remote routers.